What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4666757?

The tribunal order states: Sajjad Akbar must pay Just Prestige Properties Limited As Agent For Yong Wu

How much money was awarded in case 4666757?

Body Corporate Fines: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4666757?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4666757?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9616990-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4666757?

The tribunal order states: Sajjad Akbar must pay Just Prestige Properties Limited As Agent For Yong Wu

How much money was awarded in case 4666757?

Body Corporate Fines: $402.50 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4666757?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4666757?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9616990-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

Unit/Flat A514, 176 Broadway, Newmarket, Auckland 1023, Tenancy Tribunal Case 4666757 — Tenancy dispute

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4666757 — net $422.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Body Corporate fines	$402.50	Body Corporate fines
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$422.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$422.94

Just Prestige Properties Ltd (“the landlord”) claimed that Sajjad Akbar (“the tenant”) had breached the Tenancy Agreement and Body Corporate rules by dumping unauthorised items in the common area.

The landlord was seeking to recover $402.50 being fines (including administration fees) from the Body Corporate for the tenant’s breach.

In support of that claim, the landlord produced evidence of three warnings including photographic evidence and two fines issued by the Body Corporate since August 2022. The landlord gave evidence that it had sent many emails regarding the breach and tried to communicate with the tenant, but the tenant has refused to pay.

In response to the claim, the tenant was adamant that he was not liable for breaching the Body Corporate rules as he was not aware of the rules, nor was he provided a copy of them. He was adamant that he had been unfairly targeted and believed that the landlord was racist as other tenants had dumped unauthorised items in the common area without being reprimanded.

The issue for the Tribunal is to determine whether the tenant is liable for the Body Corporate fines under the Tenancy Agreement.

The relevant law is the law of contract. A contract is a legal agreement between two or more parties. The terms of the contract set out what each party has agreed to. It is a breach of contract if a party to a contract does not do what they have agreed to under the contract.

The tenancy agreement signed on 14 February 2022 by the tenant stated at clause 11 of the Terms and Conditions of the agreement, that the Body Corporate rules apply. A copy of the Body Corporate rules was attached to the agreement and initialled by the tenant. The clauses set out in the Body Corporate rules relating to “Cleanliness and removal of rubbish” are relevant and state as follows:

26A Proprietor shall ensure that the Proprietor Unit is kept clean at all times and that rubbish is regularly collected from the Unit and not allowed to accumulate. All rubbish shall be disposed of through the rubbish chute on each apartment lev; of the Residential Precinct, for removal, on the usual days by the local authority or by independent contractors when required to do so by the Body Corporate.

27A Proprietor shall not allow litter or rubbish to accumulate on the Common Property, and the cost incurred in removing any rubbish from, or the cleaning of any part of the Common Property where there is a breach of this Rule, shall be borne by the Proprietor responsible.

In the circumstances, I prefer the evidence from the landlord. I find the tenant has breached the Tenancy Agreement and Body Corporate rules by dumping unauthorised items in the common area. The landlord has incurred Body Corporate fines and administration fees for the tenant’s breaches. I am satisfied the landlord is entitled under contract to recover these costs and the tenant must reimburse the landlord accordingly.

I understand the tenant considered his refusal to pay was reasonable, however, there is no evidence before me that there is any lawful reason to resist payment.

I have had regard to the tenant’s argument that he did not receive a copy of the Body Corporate rules, but this was disputed by the landlord.

As noted above, the Tenancy Agreement was signed by the tenant and the attached Body Corporate rules was initialled by the tenant. A signed document is generally binding, which includes the terms and conditions. The responsibility of reading the contract including the terms and conditions rests with the tenant, the failure to do so does not negate their contractual obligations.

As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4666757 — net $422.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Body Corporate fines	$402.50	Body Corporate fines
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$422.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$422.94

Order

Sajjad Akbar must pay Just Prestige Properties Limited As Agent For Yong Wu $422.94 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.

Reasons

Just Prestige Properties Ltd (“the landlord”) claimed that Sajjad Akbar (“the tenant”) had breached the Tenancy Agreement and Body Corporate rules by dumping unauthorised items in the common area.
The landlord was seeking to recover $402.50 being fines (including administration fees) from the Body Corporate for the tenant’s breach.
In support of that claim, the landlord produced evidence of three warnings including photographic evidence and two fines issued by the Body Corporate since August 2022. The landlord gave evidence that it had sent many emails regarding the breach and tried to communicate with the tenant, but the tenant has refused to pay.
In response to the claim, the tenant was adamant that he was not liable for breaching the Body Corporate rules as he was not aware of the rules, nor was he provided a copy of them. He was adamant that he had been unfairly targeted and believed that the landlord was racist as other tenants had dumped unauthorised items in the common area without being reprimanded.
The issue for the Tribunal is to determine whether the tenant is liable for the Body Corporate fines under the Tenancy Agreement.
The relevant law is the law of contract. A contract is a legal agreement between two or more parties. The terms of the contract set out what each party has agreed to. It is a breach of contract if a party to a contract does not do what they have agreed to under the contract.
The tenancy agreement signed on 14 February 2022 by the tenant stated at clause 11 of the Terms and Conditions of the agreement, that the Body Corporate rules apply. A copy of the Body Corporate rules was attached to the agreement and initialled by the tenant. The clauses set out in the Body Corporate rules relating to “Cleanliness and removal of rubbish” are relevant and state as follows:
26A Proprietor shall ensure that the Proprietor Unit is kept clean at all times and that rubbish is regularly collected from the Unit and not allowed to accumulate. All rubbish shall be disposed of through the rubbish chute on each apartment lev; of the Residential Precinct, for removal, on the usual days by the local authority or by independent contractors when required to do so by the Body Corporate.
27A Proprietor shall not allow litter or rubbish to accumulate on the Common Property, and the cost incurred in removing any rubbish from, or the cleaning of any part of the Common Property where there is a breach of this Rule, shall be borne by the Proprietor responsible.
In the circumstances, I prefer the evidence from the landlord. I find the tenant has breached the Tenancy Agreement and Body Corporate rules by dumping unauthorised items in the common area. The landlord has incurred Body Corporate fines and administration fees for the tenant’s breaches. I am satisfied the landlord is entitled under contract to recover these costs and the tenant must reimburse the landlord accordingly.
I understand the tenant considered his refusal to pay was reasonable, however, there is no evidence before me that there is any lawful reason to resist payment.
I have had regard to the tenant’s argument that he did not receive a copy of the Body Corporate rules, but this was disputed by the landlord.
As noted above, the Tenancy Agreement was signed by the tenant and the attached Body Corporate rules was initialled by the tenant. A signed document is generally binding, which includes the terms and conditions. The responsibility of reading the contract including the terms and conditions rests with the tenant, the failure to do so does not negate their contractual obligations.
As the landlord has wholly succeeded with the claim, I must order the other party to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4666757 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat A514, 176 Broadway, Newmarket, Auckland 1023,

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4666757 — Tenancy dispute at Unit/Flat A514, 176 Broadway, Newmarket, Auckland 1023,

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Key findings

Property management

Frequently asked questions